[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 216 (Thursday, November 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77350-77352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24552]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[BLM_CO_FRN_MO4500174063]


Notice of Availability of the Draft Resource Management Plan 
Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement for Big Game Habitat 
Conservation for Oil and Gas Management, Colorado

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
of 1976, as amended (FLMPA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has 
prepared a Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendment and Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Big Game Habitat Conservation 
for Oil and Gas Management and by this notice is providing information 
announcing the opening of the comment period on the Draft RMP 
Amendment/EIS.

DATES: This notice announces the opening of a 90-day comment period for 
the Draft RMP Amendment/EIS beginning with the date following the 
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) publication of its Notice of 
Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register. The EPA usually publishes 
its NOAs on Fridays.
    To afford the BLM the opportunity to consider comments in the 
Proposed RMP Amendment/Final EIS, please ensure your comments are 
received prior to the close of the 90-day comment period or 15 days 
after the last public meeting, whichever is later.

ADDRESSES: The Draft RMP Amendment/EIS is available for review on the 
BLM ePlanning project website at https://go.usa.gov/xzXxY.
    Written comments related to Big Game Habitat Conservation for Oil 
and Gas Management may be submitted by any of the following methods:
    <bullet> Website: https://go.usa.gov/xzXxY.
    <bullet> Mail: BLM Colorado State Office, Attn: Big Game Habitat 
Conservation amendment/EIS, Denver Federal Center Building 40, 
Lakewood, CO 80225.
    Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined online at 
https://go.usa.gov/xzXxY and at the BLM Colorado State Office, Denver 
Federal Center, Building 1A, Lakewood, Colorado.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Bittner, Deputy State Director,

[[Page 77351]]

Resources, telephone 303-239-3768; address BLM Colorado State Office, 
Attn: Big Game Corridor amendment/EIS, Denver Federal Center Building 
40, Lakewood, CO 80225; email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3f7d7372607c70605c504d4d565b504d4c604f535e51515651587f5d535211585049"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d2909e9f8d919d8db1bda0a0bbb6bda0a18da2beb3bcbcbbbcb592b0bebffcb5bda4">[email protected]</span></a>. 
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of 
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services for contacting 
Mr. Bittner. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay 
services offered within their country to make international calls to 
the point-of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document provides notice that the BLM 
Colorado State Director has prepared a Draft RMP Amendment/EIS and 
provides information announcing the opening of the comment period on 
the Draft RMP Amendment/EIS. The RMP amendment addresses alternative 
approaches for oil and gas management in order to maintain, conserve, 
and protect big game high priority habitat that would require amending 
the following existing plans:

<bullet> Northeast Resource Area RMP (1986)
<bullet> Royal Gorge Resource Area RMP (1996)
<bullet> San Luis Resource Area RMP (1991)
<bullet> Gunnison Resource Area RMP (1993)
<bullet> Uncompahgre Field Office RMP (2020)
<bullet> Colorado River Valley Field Office RMP (2015) and Roan Plateau 
Amendment (2016)
<bullet> Grand Junction Field Office RMP (2015)
<bullet> Kremmling RMP (2015)
<bullet> Little Snake RMP (2011)
<bullet> White River Field Office RMP (1997)
<bullet> Tres Rios Field Office RMP (2015)
<bullet> Canyons of the Ancients National Monument RMP (2010)
<bullet> Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area RMP (2004)

    The planning area includes all counties in Colorado and encompasses 
approximately 8.3 million acres of public land and approximately 27 
million acres of Federal mineral estate. The decision area includes all 
8.3 million acres of BLM-administered surface land (except where 
Federal minerals have been withdrawn from mineral leasing) plus 
approximately 4.7 million acres of Federal mineral split estate.
    Formal public scoping for the Draft RMP Amendment/EIS started with 
the publication of the notice of intent (NOI) in the Federal Register 
on July 19, 2022. The NOI contained information about the purpose and 
need, preliminary planning criteria, proposed alternatives, expected 
impacts, and information about how to comment. The BLM requested that 
the public submit scoping comments in response to the NOI by September 
2, 2022. Comments were used to inform development of the management 
plan. Issues analyzed in detail in the EIS include air quality, 
geology, fluid minerals, climate, noise and the acoustic environment, 
lands and realty, soil resources, big game species and habitat, special 
status species and other wildlife, vegetation, Native American 
religious concerns, cultural and paleontological resources, 
socioeconomics and environmental justice, recreation, travel and 
transportation, and visual resources.

Purpose and Need

    The purpose of this RMP amendment process is to evaluate 
alternative approaches for oil and gas planning decisions to maintain, 
conserve, and protect big game corridors and other big game high 
priority habitat on BLM-administered lands and Federal mineral estate 
in Colorado. Under the authority of Section 202 of FLPMA, the BLM also 
seeks to evaluate consistency with plans or policies and programs of 
other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Tribes, to the 
extent consistent with Federal laws, regulations, policies, and 
programs applicable to BLM-administered lands.
    This RMP amendment process will consider current big game 
population and habitat data and evaluate planning alternatives' 
consistency with the policies and programs of State agencies that 
manage big game populations and regulate oil and gas operations in 
Colorado: Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) and the Colorado Energy and 
Carbon Management Commission (ECMC). CPW manages wildlife in Colorado, 
and the ECMC regulates oil and gas development. Colorado Senate Bill 
19-181 Oil and Gas Act gives the ECMC the authority to promulgate 
regulations that are protective of human health, safety, welfare, the 
environment, and wildlife resources. The ECMC 1200 series rules 
identify certain big game habitats where oil and gas operations are 
subject to specific ECMC requirements. CPW's implementation of the ECMC 
requirements for high priority habitat is intended to avoid, minimize, 
and mitigate impacts to big game habitats.
    This RMP amendment process also complies with the terms of the 
settlement agreement in State of Colorado v. Bureau of Land Management 
(U.S. District Court for Colorado, 1:21-cv-00129).

Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative

    The BLM has analyzed four alternatives in detail, including the no 
action alternative. Alternative A is the No Action alternative and is 
based on existing approved RMPs, as amended, throughout Colorado. This 
alternative reflects the management decisions in the existing RMPs. The 
analysis considers how the BLM is currently managing big game habitat 
protection and oil and gas development across the state and provides a 
characterization of the existing environment for comparison with the 
action alternatives.
    Alternative B is based on management alignment with the ECMC rules 
for oil and gas development in elk, mule deer, pronghorn, and bighorn 
sheep high priority habitat (Rule 1202.c, d; Rule 1203). Where lands 
are open to oil and gas leasing under existing RMPs, Alternative B 
prescribes measures consistent with the ECMC rules to conserve high 
priority habitat. Alternative B incorporates various oil and gas lease 
stipulations, including a controlled surface use density limitation of 
one well pad per square mile in big game high priority habitat subject 
to waivers, exceptions, and modifications in some circumstances.
    Alternative C, in addition to incorporating lease stipulations 
similar to alternative B, applies a three percent surface disturbance 
cap on oil and gas development within big game high priority habitat on 
BLM surface lands. This limit does not apply to private, local 
government, or State lands in the decision area. This alternative 
provides for waivers, exceptions, and modifications to the stipulations 
in some circumstances.
    Alternative D is similar to the other action alternatives in that 
it also incorporates lease stipulations that align the BLM's oil and 
gas management with ECMC's rules for big game high priority habitat in 
the decision area. Alternative D includes a three percent surface 
disturbance cap on oil and gas development within big game high 
priority habitat; however, the application of this cap is not limited 
to BLM surface lands as it is under Alternative C. Under this 
alternative, the disturbance threshold applies to big game high 
priority habitat on all lands in the decision area regardless of land 
ownership. Additionally, unlike Alternatives B and C, this alternative 
proposes to reduce the area open to leasing of oil and gas. 
Specifically, big game high priority habitat areas identified with low, 
moderate, or no known oil and gas development

[[Page 77352]]

potential would be closed to new Federal oil and gas leasing.
    The BLM further considered five additional alternatives but 
dismissed these alternatives from detailed analysis as explained in the 
Draft RMP Amendment/EIS.
    The State Director has identified Alternative B as the preferred 
alternative because it conserves big game high priority habitat while 
balancing other resource uses.

Mitigation

    Across all action alternatives, the BLM considers potential 
mitigation in compliance with Council on Environmental Quality, 
Department of the Interior, and BLM guidance. Mitigation can help 
provide a conservation benefit to big game species when impacts from 
oil and gas development activity are not avoidable. Consistent with 
valid existing rights and applicable law, when oil and gas development 
results in habitat loss or degradation within big game high priority 
habitat, the BLM will require and ensure mitigation that provides a 
conservation benefit to the species, including accounting for any 
uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of such mitigation.
    The action alternatives call for the BLM to consider alternative 
locations for oil and gas operations that either avoid big game high 
priority habitat altogether, or, where avoidance is not feasible, 
minimize adverse impacts to the maximum extent possible. The action 
alternatives include surface density limitations, as well as a density 
trigger that would require the operator to address indirect impacts 
through compensatory mitigation. The action alternatives call for the 
BLM to include avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies in 
subsequent implementation-level NEPA analyses for proposed actions that 
may result in big game high priority habitat loss and degradation.
    Subsequent implementation-level mitigation could limit the duration 
and extent of development activities in big game high priority habitat 
through all phases of development by avoiding activities in high 
priority habitat, applying a surface density limitation, and mitigating 
impacts. Mitigation plans would address cumulative effects of oil and 
gas activities across a given landscape.
    The BLM may also require compensatory mitigation to offset 
disturbance or density limitation exceedances and direct and 
unavoidable adverse indirect impacts that result in the functional loss 
of habitat from oil and gas development in big game high priority 
habitat. Direct impacts to big game occur from disturbance or habitat 
fragmentation during construction, drilling, and/or completion 
activities and habitat conversion to oil and gas facilities. Indirect 
impacts to big game occur over time from big game avoidance of 
disturbance and the cumulative functional habitat loss from 
fragmentation and modified habitat use as development density 
increases. Indirect impacts may be avoided or minimized through the 
application of alternative siting and operating requirements. The BLM, 
after coordination with CPW, will determine whether compensatory 
mitigation proposed by the operator is sufficient to protect big game 
high priority habitat from direct and unavoidable adverse indirect 
impacts.
    The BLM has the discretion to require an operator to modify surface 
operations to change or add specific mitigation measures when supported 
by scientific analysis and consistent with existing rights. Potential 
mitigation/conservation measures not already required as stipulations 
would be analyzed in a site-specific NEPA document, and incorporated, 
as appropriate, as conditions of approval of the permit, plan of 
development, or other use authorization. In discussing surface use 
rights, 43 CFR 3101.1-2 states that the lessee has the right, ``to use 
so much of the leased lands as is necessary to explore for, drill for, 
mine, extract, remove and dispose of all the leased resource.'' 
However, lessees are subject to lease stipulations, nondiscretionary 
statutes, and as identified in 43 CFR 3101.1-2, ``such reasonable 
measures as may be required by the authorized officer to minimize 
adverse impacts to other resource values, land uses or users not 
addressed in the lease stipulations at the time operations are 
proposed.''

Schedule for the Decision-Making Process

    The BLM will provide additional opportunities for public 
participation consistent with the NEPA and land use planning processes, 
including a 30-day public protest period and a 60-day Governor's 
consistency review on the Proposed RMP. The Proposed RMP Amendment/
Final EIS is anticipated to be available for public protest starting 
August 2024, with an Approved RMP and Record of Decision in November 
2024.
    The BLM will be holding public meetings on the Draft RMP Amendment/
EIS. The specific date(s) and location(s) of these meetings will be 
announced at least 15 days in advance through local media and the 
ePlanning project page (see ADDRESSES).
    The BLM will continue to consult with Indian Tribal Nations on a 
government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 
13175, BLM Manual 1780, and other Departmental policies. Tribal 
concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential 
impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration.
    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or 
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be 
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying 
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can 
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying 
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be 
able to do so.

(Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2)

Douglas J. Vilsack,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 2023-24552 Filed 11-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4331-16-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>